rectify_subject

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral profile: it overwrites/supersedes the existing keyed value, applies normal write guards, and creates a `rights:rectify` ledger entry with actor and reason. It does not cover reversibility or failure/error behavior, but the core side effects are explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences deliver purpose, mechanism, guardrails, audit behavior, and required parameters without repetition or filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains what is written, how, with what side effects, and who must be recorded. The only notable gap is the lack of any explanation for the optional `subject` and `request_id` parameters and the absence of response/error expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description assigns roles to `key` and `text`, identifies `actor` and `reason` as required, and explains their audit purpose. Optional `subject` and `request_id` remain unexplained, so it is not a full substitute for parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'GDPR Art. 16 rectification' and a precise verb, 'supersede the value under `key` with `text`,' which names the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes rectification from sibling erasure/forget/revert operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when this is appropriate (rectification under GDPR Art. 16) and that it is an 'ordinary keyed write' with all write guards applying. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or give a 'when not to use' condition, but the legal context constrains usage well.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.